Nicholas Medforth-Mills (formerly His Royal Highness Prince Nicholas of Romania)

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Cory

You were speaking about the Constitution of 1923 but when somebody reminds you of the different articles of that Constitution you just say is abolished...

I point out that the constitution the King leans on, and the one you claim he violates, is defunct, and he has done nothing that is illogical, but to encourage parliament to update the laws of succession in the event of a monarchical restoration. Until then, it functions as an instrument for his family, to keep the royal heritage intact.

It continues to elude me how you can support removing articles in the old constitution that deals with religion, without any debate in parliament and the royal dynasty, but just on your own will to decide that that is right, while the King, who has reigned over the nation before, is not allowed to encourage, not demand, but encourage, parliament, to update royal succession in the event of a restoration.

It just eludes me.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by LadyRohan

[....] while the King, who has reigned over the nation before, is not allowed to encourage, not demand, but encourage, parliament, to update royal succession in the event of a restoration. [....]

But that is not what Michael did. He did not demand or encourage anyone. He simply made known that he effectively wept his royal derrière with the Constitution by publishing a Fundamental Law (in his eyes such a self-fabricated document seems enough to shove aside a Constitution) in which he simply invented his own line of succession, with in turbo-mode again a change (removing Princess Irina), with another change in turbo-mode (removing Nicholas Medforth-Mills, pardon..., Nicholas de Roumanie Medforth-Mills, pardon..., Prince Nicolae of Romania, pardon..., Nicholas Medorth-Mills I mean).

Had King Michael a son, he simply would have kept his fingers off from the Constitution. Oh wait... maybe his son also would have lacked "modesty and moral principles, respect and always thinking of others" and then he would maybe have changed it all again to see his grandson bypassing his father.

[Cory]

It is a closed chapter anyhow.

[fearghas]

Originally Posted by Cory

Around 20% of the population is in favour of the Restoration of the Constitutional Monarchy but people are very divided concerning the husband of Princess Margareta.
The majority of the romanians respect the king but don't understand why Prince Nicolae does not speak Romanian.

I'm sorry but Prince Who?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

You are overlooking a fact. The King does not advocate "equal primogeniture". He has changed the succession so that the firstborn male is the Heir and -when there are no males- it is about the firstborn female. He does not care about equality. He only wants to see his daughter following him, a common trait when royals are faced with no sons. With a son Michael would never have changed it at all..... Remains the fact that apparently the former King thinks he has the authority to change such a Constitution while every Romanian King, Michael included, had to do with the Constitution as it has been laid down before them by the lawmaker, and was forced to swear to observe and maintain it.

Imagine the outcry when King Harald V or King Felipe VI simply wipe their royal derrière with the Constitution? Of course, the Romanian royal Constitution is defunct as there is a republican Constitution now. Too bad for the former King. But when he claims his whole existence as a former head of state, and his daughters as royal princesses, because he once was the legitimate royal head of state of a democratic Kingdom of Romania, ruled by said Constitution, he can not change that very same basic to his own caprices privés.

He proposed a change thinking probably of his two grandsons but in meantine...

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cory

He proposed a change thinking probably of his two grandsons but in meantine...

This is *exactly* why Nicholas is not a closed chapter in the Romanian Royal Family. All because of the "..." No one knows what the future will hold.

[LadyRohan]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

This is *exactly* why Nicholas is not a closed chapter in the Romanian Royal Family. All because of the "..." No one knows what the future will hold.

Hear, hear.
For this very reason, and previous monarchical restorations being an indicator of anything, we know that they tend to be unpredictable and inclined to bend old rules. For the moment, he does not represent the Royal Family as he has done in the past 5 years, but we do not know what tomorrow brings. The positive thing to come of all this, even the reactions to the demotion of Nicholas, is that what happens in the Royal Family is watched, and cared about. That's a foundation as good as anything, and attention that can be spun into something good and useful, when the chance comes.

[eya]

Of course Nicolae is not closed chapter on Romania. Nobody knows the future and is certainly very important that all these years he lived in Romania the experienced and learned the language. I am sure that even the royalists support Nicolae but of course not from respect can come into conflict with King Mihai. It has been very interesting to see the developments when the Princess Maragareta become head of the royal house.

[Benjamin]

Reports have recently appeared in the Romanian press suggesting that Prince Nicholas lost his succession rights after a very brief affair with Nicoleta Cîrjan which resulted in a pregnancy.

Neither the lady or gentleman in question has commented on the parentage of the unborn child.

The baby, a girl, is due in early 2016.

Royal Musings: is a baby the reason Nicholas Medforth-Mills lost his succession rights and title.

This article goes into more detail as to why such an occurrence may have caused the reaction of Royal House.

http://www.flux24.ro/exclusiv-flux-2...-pentru-avere/

[rominet09]

Honestly, in 2015 is it a crime to father a child out of wedlock such as to have you kicked out of a Royal position ???

[Ceallach]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Reports have recently appeared in the Romanian press suggesting that Prince Nicholas lost his succession rights after a very brief affair with Nicoleta Cîrjan which resulted in a pregnancy.

Neither the lady or gentleman in question has commented on the parentage of the unborn child.

The baby, a girl, is due in early 2016.

Royal Musings: is a baby the reason Nicholas Medforth-Mills lost his succession rights and title.

This article goes into more detail as to why such an occurrence may have caused the reaction of Royal House.

EXCLUSIV/ FLUX 24 dezvăluie SECRETUL alungării Prințului Nicolae: Un copil nedorit de Casa Regală și BĂTĂLIA PENTRU AVERE

So if I understand this: Nicoleta ended a six year relationship, claims to have had an unprotected fling with Nicholas and that she then took a morning after pill but it failed. I am not saying that she is lying, she may honestly believe that, but what if she is wrong? I have seen stats from the US where when there is a paternity test, that in 1/3 of the cases the man the woman said was the father was not the father and many had genuinely believed it. What if it is true about the fling but that the morning after pill did work and that the child is a result of the 6 year relationship. In the second article they have her at first last summer claiming the child to be a boy but say now she claims it to be a girl. Here they do not like to confirm sex before 23 weeks and I know cases where they were wrong. Since she is still pregnant (early 2016), she was not that far in May/June. Yet they reportedly acted based on her saying it was a boy and possibly still in her first trimester? Also why were they so adamant on him leaving Romania, if he does have a baby about to be born in Romania - to limit the media attention? From a PR point of view so far this has not been handled well, so do they have a plan for that scenario? If this is about a out of wedlock child, besides being overkill, shouldn't you have proof of paternity first before you act?

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Ceallach

So if I understand this: Nicoleta ended a six year relationship, claims to have had an unprotected fling with Nicholas and that she then took a morning after pill but it failed.

Just, as far as I have understood, she has never openly mentioned that the man in question was Nicholas. So it is assumed that she was referring to Nicholas, but nothing is confirmed or even just openly said.

[Ceallach]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Just, as far as I have understood, she has never openly mentioned that the man in question was Nicholas. So it is assumed that she was referring to Nicholas, but nothing is confirmed or even just openly said.

She has not said that publicly nor is it confirmed. But it is my understanding is that this whole situation exists because, as it suggests in the articles, she has expressed this privately to the royal family.

[eya]

At least if it's true what comes out of the frame one of the many reasons we have heard about that Nicolae lost his title. That being gay. At the end we will find the cause.

[MAfan]

Originally Posted by Ceallach

She has not said that publicly nor is it confirmed. But it is my understanding is that this whole situation exists because, as it suggests in the articles, she has expressed this privately to the royal family.

This is something I was wondering, how did the press find out that Miss Cirjan is pregnant and that maybe the father could be Nicholas?
If she told herself, why didn't she openly spoke his name?
If she told privately to the Royal Family, but not to the press, who of them (or close to them) told the press?

[Ceallach]

Originally Posted by MAfan

This is something I was wondering, how did the press find out that Miss Cirjan is pregnant and that maybe the father could be Nicholas?
If she told herself, why didn't she openly spoke his name?
If she told privately to the Royal Family, but not to the press, who of them (or close to them) told the press?

The second article implied she would not confirm to them and some of the information on the pregnancy was taken from a blog, which talks about her pregnancy and shows pictures but does not name the father. So it seems to be a leak from someone other than Nicoleta or Nicholas since he has not said anything either. Unless the media is going by what Nicoleta's friends said Nicoleta said the royals said it is likely a palace leak to be talking about the royals' reactions and specifically Radu, Margherita and Michael but no Nicholas.

[Ceallach]

Another article giving a different timeline: got pregnant in early May and informed family in July not May/June. So this baby may be due in January or February.

http://www.evz.ro/scandalul-regal-fa...terruptus.html

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is just a testimonium de auditu: the evidence of news by those who relate, not by what they know themselves, but by what they possibly might have heard from others. Take it with a firm handful of salt...

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Ceallach

Unless the media is going by what Nicoleta's friends said Nicoleta said the royals said it is likely a palace leak to be talking about the royals' reactions and specifically Radu, Margherita and Michael but no Nicholas.

According to the original article, it seems to have been a palace leak.

Hence the references to frequent arguments between Margarita, Radu and Nicholas after the pregnancy was revealed. Apparently Nicholas did think that the child was going to be a boy, and this did not sit well with his uncle, who perhaps is not keen that the royal spotlight be focused on the younger generation. The royal family does possess a not insignificant fortune now.

[vkrish]

Originally Posted by rominet09

Honestly, in 2015 is it a crime to father a child out of wedlock such as to have you kicked out of a Royal position ???

You have to understand that it is 2015 only for you and me. The "King" intends to live forever in the 1940s, and expects everyone to do so with lots of modesty and dignity..